Online advertising ‘does not compromise privacy’

After a lively debate in a packed Grand Committee Room at the House of Commons last night, the Parliamentary Debating Group and assembled audience voted to oppose the motion “online advertising compromises privacy”.

Tuesday, 18 November 2008

David Heath, MP for Somerton and Frome and recently appointed leader of the Liberal Democrat’s Commission on Privacy, chaired the debate, which was sponsored by the Internet Advertising Bureau UK.

Speaking in favour of the motion were Anne Bevitt, partner at Morrison Foerster and Becky Hogge, executive director at the Open Rights Group UK. Speaking against were Andrew Walmsley, co-founder of digital agency i-level and Jeremy Mason, managing director European operations, Revenue Science.

Key issues such as behavioural targeting and the use of cookies versus the societal benefits of ad-funded content were debated, with representatives from some of the major players in the internet advertising industry – such as Google and Yahoo! – contributing from the floor.

Summary of the debate



“There is no legal definition of privacy”

Solicitor Ann Bevitt opened by explaining that “there is no legal definition of privacy”. Bevitt went on to outline some basic rules that should be followed in the context of online privacy.

Bevitt emphasised the need for ‘consent’ between the advertiser and the consumer, before going on to argue that consumers should have the right to turn to the Human Rights Act Article 8 for protection.

“For my personal data to be used without my permission is a breach of my personal privacy,” she concluded.

“A stupendous success”

Next up was Andrew Walmsley, co-founder of i-level. Speaking for the motion he explained: “Online advertising has been a stupendous success in the UK. We spend more per capita in the UK than even in the US”.

According to Walmsley this means that “something extraordinary” has happened – consumers now get “lots of stuff for free”. By this he was referring to access to content from sites such as guardian.co.uk and services from Yahoo! and Google, “all paid for by advertising”. He also talked of Facebook groups set up to support Barack Obama and ad funded websites like Tripadvisor which he described as “the voice of consumers”. Advertising, he said, was “a great democratising force”. Under this model, he argued, “everyone wins”.

Walmsley went on to argue that there are “small groups of people who don’t like this model”, referring to a time when the internet was run by “geeks and technologists”. “They resent the loss of that exclusive domain”, he said, arguing that “they want to turn the clock back to a kind of Amish internet”.

Next, Walmsley turned his attention to behavioural targeting, arguing that people were seizing on it as a “convenient excuse”. Behavioural targeting is for him “hugely important” and offers a “massive prize for society”.

While he acknowledged that some people have “legitimate concerns over privacy”, he stated: “The industry is very concerned. Nobody wants to invade privacy. The PR fall out would be horrendous.”

Walmsley concluded by arguing that consumers are asking: ‘How long will it be before my broadband is cheaper?’ “People will trade data for that,” he argued. “People want the option to make an informed choice.”



“Something more sinister”

Following Walmsley was Becky Hogge, executive director of the Open Rights Group, a grassroots campaign for civil liberties in the digital world. “I’m not here to debate that advertising is an intrusion”, Hogge began. Indeed she explained that she was there to oppose what she sees as “something more sinister”, namely “the harnessing of data about our browsing habits online”.

Hogge’s argument centred around “the right to disclose selectively”. She attacked Walmsley’s comments about “geeks and technofiles” and argued that it shows “advertisers are falling into the trap of thinking they are cleverer than consumers”.

For her the crucial point is that providers are “intercepting” communications “to sell advertising”. This she said is “as bad for advertisers as it is for the market”.

“Consumer choice and empowerment”

The final speaker of the night, Jeremy Mason, managing director, European operations, Revenue Science, opened his argument by stating: “Consumer choice and empowerment has always been a feature of online”. He went on to argue that there have always been concerns about privacy from all parties.

Online advertising for him “enhances the online experience.” As evidence, he suggested that “social networking wouldn’t exist without advertising to support it.”

The core for him is “consumer choice and empowerment”. As an example he described how Spyware was rejected by consumers. “I applaud privacy campaigners for bringing this issue up”, he argued.



Comments from the floor

Next, the debate was opened up to the floor. “Some online advertising inevitably compromises privacy”, argued Marina Palomba, legal director at the IPA, before going on to argue that “the benefits are unquestionable”.

“Do people want the benefits? Yes. Do they want to consent? Yes. Those that don’t should opt out.”

Dominic Allon, agency leader at Google was the next to speak. The debate for him hinged on the question of “privacy versus utility”.

“Google’s success relies on sustaining the trust of our users. Transparency is key,” said Allon. As an example he pointed to the recent launch of Google’s new browser, Chrome, which allows users to easily see cookies and makes deleting browser history easy.

“Empowered consumers can make choices”, argued Allon. “At Google we’ve always said ‘If you focus on the consumer then all else will follow’.”

Following Allon, Brooks Dobbs, chief privacy officer at Phorm, argued: “Our technology is very misunderstood.” He explained that for him personal privacy was very much a personal issue – but it was an issue that consumers could figure out for themselves. “Is the bargain a good one? The bargain is a very good one,” he argued.

Finally, Emma Ascroft, head of public and social policy at Yahoo!, reminded attendees about the direct marketing model where it can be very difficult to opt out of individual marketing lists. Citing the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) model, she argued that with online it’s “never been easier”. “Users have never had that degree of control. In the online world we should welcome that.”



Summations

In his concluding statements, Andrew Walmsley dismissed what he called “a confusing set of convenient arguments” and “the incredible rumour mill” that has led to sensationally incorrect stories about Phorm being variously based in China, linked to Russian security services and a tool of the British Government.

Consumer choice is the key issue for him. As an example he outlined the way that consumers refused to accept pop ups. This he said was “a triumph of consumer power”. He argued that there is a current confusion between invasions of privacy and bad advertising, alongside an emotive confusion between cookies and spyware, and ended by saying that consumers can turn cookies off. “It’s for consumers to make an informed choice”, said Walmsley.

In Ann Bevitt’s concluding statement, she argued that “the motion is not that the benefits outweigh the negatives…Some online advertising compromises people’s privacy. That is all we need to show”.

For her, the Phorm model “compromises privacy”, leaving her to conclude: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch – even a virtual lunch”.